NationStates Jolt Archive

When a Iraqi man and his pregnant wife speed down a road closed by the military and refuse to stop when ordered, are they sacrificing themselves to make Americans lose popularity?

This would certainly be more effective in uniting Iraqis against US forces than blowing up Iraqis who are trying to get jobs. Has the enemy gotten smarter?

I think so. If this is true they're alittle smarter than what I give them credit for.

ETA: I have tried to change the title but it won't let me.

Cripes...this is a little beyond " in bad taste " dont ya think ....:p



Put the beer down fella and back away nice and easy...:D

Cripes...this is a little beyond " in bad taste " dont ya think ....:p



Put the beer down fella and back away nice and easy...:D

bah, I don't drink.

Seriously, these ROPers are smart....I am suspicious...

When a Iraqi man and his pregnant wife speed down a road closed by the military and refuse to stop when ordered, are they sacrificing themselves to make Americans lose popularity?

This would certainly be more effective in uniting Iraqis against US forces than blowing up Iraqis who are trying to get jobs. Has the enemy gotten smarter?

I think so. If this is true they're alittle smarter than what I give them credit for.

How can they make Americans lose popularity when the Americans don't have any popularity to begin with?

The guy was rushing his wife to the hospital because she was pregnant and didn't stop at a checkpoint. I did the same with my fiance as I didn't stop at any red lights.

bah, I don't drink.

Seriously, these ROPers are smart....I am suspicious...


you better start....the beer might help put the flames out ...:D

When a Iraqi man and his pregnant wife speed down a road closed by the military and refuse to stop when ordered, are they sacrificing themselves to make Americans lose popularity?

This would certainly be more effective in uniting Iraqis against US forces than blowing up Iraqis who are trying to get jobs. Has the enemy gotten smarter?

I think so. If this is true they're alittle smarter than what I give them credit for.

I don't think this specific instance was a 'martyrdom' used to demonize the US. I think they were actually trying to get to the hospital rather than commit 'suicide by soldier.'

That being said, there are many instances of 'martyrdom' missions designed specifically as propaganda, whereby an Arab will intentionally get killed or kill someone else in an attempt to make it look as if it were the fault of the enemy. I mentioned this in a previous post, but gay Palestinian youths in the documentary Gan testified that they were almost victims of this very type of mission.

How can they make Americans lose popularity when the Americans don't have any popularity to begin with?

The guy was rushing his wife to the hospital because she was pregnant and didn't stop at a checkpoint. I did the same with my fiance as I didn't stop at any red lights.

Of course we're popular. With insurgents, kids, and in general iraqis.


Red lights aren't going to open up on you if you don't stop. And they don't know you're intentions-Insurgents in general do not care about human life, innocent bystanders, or whether or not you were there by chance.

30 pages and a lock, easy.

I don't think this specific instance was a 'martyrdom' used to demonize the US. I think they were actually trying to get to the hospital rather than commit 'suicide by soldier.'

That being said, there are many instances of 'martyrdom' missions designed specifically as propaganda, whereby an Arab will intentionally get killed or kill someone else in an attempt to make it look as if it were the fault of the enemy. I mentioned this in a previous post, but gay Palestinian youths in the documentary Gan testified that they were almost victims of this very type of mission.

I agree-they MAY or MAY NOT have been 'rags on a mission. Who knows, however the guys at the checkpoint KNOW they didn't stop. A stop accompanied by a point to the wifey would have settled things.

Of course we're popular. With insurgents, kids, and in general iraqis.


Red lights aren't going to open up on you if you don't stop. And they don't know you're intentions-Insurgents in general do not care about human life, innocent bystanders, or whether or not you were there by chance.

30 pages and a lock, easy.

Popular with their bullets and rockets?

I enjoy your description of the word "Insurgent". I'm sure you've met an "Insurgent" haven't you? All they are is a rebel, rebelling against us. They're human beings just like you and I, and to say they do not care about human life, innocent bystanders, whatever, is completely wrong. It would be safe to say that the American troops don't care about human life or innocent bystanders with their recent actions. So let's not be hypocrites here.

I agree-they MAY or MAY NOT have been 'rags on a mission. Who knows, however the guys at the checkpoint KNOW they didn't stop. A stop accompanied by a point to the wifey would have settled things.

Right, its definatley not the fault of soldiers for following procedure that results in an accident or civilian casualty. And regardless of if the car did this accidentally or intentionally, it serves the purpose of the Iraqi insurgents. They get to distort this as an example of those evil wicked Zionist Americans drinking the blood of Arab babies.

you better start....the beer might help put the flames out ...:D

Like I said, I don't drink...I have a fire extinguisher handy though. It's right next to me, next to 500 gallons of VAPOR GASOLINE!

:D

Popular with their bullets and rockets?

I enjoy your description of the word "Insurgent". I'm sure you've met an "Insurgent" haven't you? All they are is a rebel, rebelling against us. They're human beings just like you and I, and to say they do not care about human life, innocent bystanders, whatever, is completely wrong. It would be safe to say that the American troops don't care about human life or innocent bystanders with their recent actions. So let's not be hypocrites here.

Yep. We're loved all ways by the iraqis.

I don't care if I meet them, and I refuse to look at them other than stepped on dog turdmush (Which is what they are). Car bombing schools, mosques, and open air bazaars. Ah! What romance and mystique to the life of an insurgent! What ruggedness!

If I ever met a raghead...I'm not sure what I'd do, but it would be violent. Forget my pacifist leanings, I'm starting a brawl. I knew I played hockey for a reason...

Don't care about Iraqis? Psshaw. We go out of our way to avoid hurting them when possible. I guess the candy for the kids (Which is why Farah ran out to meet the American patrol, BTW.) or even bother with being friendly. We organized an election, provide security, and do our best to make things safe for them. Yeeeaaaaahh........

Right, its definatley not the fault of soldiers for following procedure that results in an accident or civilian casualty. And regardless of if the car did this accidentally or intentionally, it serves the purpose of the Iraqi insurgents. They get to distort this as an example of those evil wicked Zionist Americans drinking the blood of Arab babies.

We're screwed either way. I wish there was a way to determine whether or not a speeding car was a friendly, wanna be Car bomber, or wanna be "victim".


Wish there was a fastpass for checkpoints.......

When a Iraqi man and his pregnant wife speed down a road closed by the military and refuse to stop when ordered, are they sacrificing themselves to make Americans lose popularity?

That's exactly the kind of backwards, paranoid thinking that exemplifies people of your sort.

Maybe they refused an "order" because they have no part in the chain of command of a foreign army occupying their nation. But I know you pro-war folks, if the USA was invaded by a foreign country, you'd immediately get into line, accept the new regime and consider anyone who didn't a terrorist.


I think so. If this is true they're alittle smarter than what I give them credit for.

If only I could say the same of you.

That's exactly the kind of backwards, paranoid thinking that exemplifies people of your sort.

What is paranoid about his suspicion? We have historical precedent to support it; its happened in the past on numerous occassions. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to at least be suspicious that this was a 'martyrdom' mission, as they have taken this form, and not an accident.

Like I wrote, we have testimony from Arabs (see Gan) that a modus operandi of terrorist groups is to 'martyr' civilians at the hands of soldiers, known by the term 'suicide by cop' or 'suicide by soldier.' Thus when Arab groups do something that appears to be reckless, and is definatly illegal (as running roadblocks is), that would make them the potential targets of soldiers, it isn't paranoid or unreasonable to at least believe it was possible this was intended as a martyrdom mission.

How can they make Americans lose popularity when the Americans don't have any popularity to begin with?

The guy was rushing his wife to the hospital because she was pregnant and didn't stop at a checkpoint. I did the same with my fiance as I didn't stop at any red lights.

I guess there's a certain irony about wanting to get to a hospital and not heeding traffic lights - lol.

Is It Possible...Iraqi Civilian Casualties Are A New Breed Of Suicide Bomber...?

When a Iraqi man and his pregnant wife speed down a road closed by the military and refuse to stop when ordered, are they sacrificing themselves to make Americans lose popularity?

This would certainly be more effective in uniting Iraqis against US forces than blowing up Iraqis who are trying to get jobs. Has the enemy gotten smarter?

I think so. If this is true they're alittle smarter than what I give them credit for.
No, it is not possible.

First the Hello Kitty brand "Jesus Loves Me, This I Know" gun sight and now this? How do you manage to be so clueless and so offensive at the same time?

...
...

Holy crap, I just figured it out -- you're missing this point too!!! :D

(Marksman...LOL)

What is paranoid about his suspicion?

It's not only paranoid, it's a justification. Instead of accepting that civilian Iraqi casualties are the result of US occupation of Iraq (as most rational people do), he gets to pin their deaths on them. It's blaming the victim. It's as paranoid as suspecting rape reports are a conspiracy by feminist radicals to paint males in a bad light.

Like I wrote, we have testimony from Arabs (see Gan) that a modus operandi of terrorist groups is to 'martyr' civilians at the hands of soldiers, known by the term 'suicide by cop' or 'suicide by soldier.'

Yeah. Pregnant women terrorists. I suppose the fetus was a terrorist too. How reasonable.

It's not only paranoid, it's a justification. Instead of accepting that civilian Iraqi casualties are the result of US occupation of Iraq (as most rational people do), he gets to pin their deaths on them. It's blaming the victim. It's as paranoid as suspecting rape reports are a conspiracy by feminist radicals to paint males in a bad light.



Yeah. Pregnant women terrorists. I suppose the fetus was a terrorist too. How reasonable.
Nah, it's not paranoid. It's just stupid, childish and spineless, an extreme -- and disgusting -- example of someone desperate to avoid responsibility for the outcomes of their actions by, as you put it, blaming the victim. :rolleyes:

It's not only paranoid, it's a justification. Instead of accepting that civilian Iraqi casualties are the result of US occupation of Iraq (as most rational people do), he gets to pin their deaths on them. It's blaming the victim. It's as paranoid as suspecting rape reports are a conspiracy by feminist radicals to paint males in a bad light.

He never pinned civilian casualties on US soldiers. You're trying to take a skepticism of one situation and apply it universally. It doesn't work.

The fact is, we have historical precedent of his suspicion. Because its happened in the past, and is a modus operandi of terrorist groups, there is nothing unreasonable or paranoid about the assumption.

Yeah. Pregnant women terrorists. I suppose the fetus was a terrorist too. How reasonable.

Maybe you missed the other thread, but we covered women terrorists in depth. It seems to me that you aren't that familiar with Middle Eastern terrorism, because pregnant woman terrorists are not unheard of either. Not only in the Middle East, but among the Tamil Tigers as well:

Pregnant Tamil suicide bomber (http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read/10137)

Now, there was originally some controversy, as women frequently pretend to be pregnant to hide bombs. It turns out this one was confirmed to be actually pregnant:

Pregnancy confirmed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/28/AR2006042800734.html)

In addition, Iraqis are known to do suicide attacks with pregnant women. Keep in mind, the woman in the car may not have even known the husband (who was driving) intended to do a 'martyrdom' mission. In any case, we have records of pregnant women doing suicide attacks too:

Pregnant Iraqi suicide attack (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2917107.stm)

But I'm sure you knew all about this, right?

When a Iraqi man and his pregnant wife speed down a road closed by the military and refuse to stop when ordered, are they sacrificing themselves to make Americans lose popularity?

This would certainly be more effective in uniting Iraqis against US forces than blowing up Iraqis who are trying to get jobs. Has the enemy gotten smarter?

I think so. If this is true they're alittle smarter than what I give them credit for.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least. Nor would it surprise me for a fundmentalist to stuff a bomb under her shirt and to pretend to be pregnant either. This is not the first time someone has been shot for not stopping at a check point and everyone knows by now the consequences. Our soldiers cannot assume anything as we all know. They were doing their job nothing more.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least. Nor would it surprise me for a fundmentalist to stuff a bomb under her shirt and to pretend to be pregnant either. This is not the first time someone has been shot for not stopping at a check point and everyone knows by now the consequences. Our soldiers cannot assume anything as we all know. They were doing their job nothing more.

Funny you should mention that, since just headed that way. Actually pregnant women are regarded with extreme caution and suspicion at checkpoints because false bellies have been used to conceal bombs or get close for checkpoint suicide attacks in addition to smuggling in explosives, drugs, weapons, etc.

Thats one reason why in Israel women are as common at checkpoints as men; men can't put their hands on the women to search them.

Funny you should mention that, since just headed that way. Actually pregnant women are regarded with extreme caution and suspicion at checkpoints because false bellies have been used to conceal bombs or get close for checkpoint suicide attacks in addition to smuggling in explosives, drugs, weapons, etc.

Thats one reason why in Israel women are as common at checkpoints as men; men can't put their hands on the women to search them.

Makes sense to me.

Gee, I wonder if all the Busheviks will be crowing about Muslim terrorists long after every single Muslim has been exterminated?

Gee, I wonder if all the Busheviks will be crowing about Muslim terrorists long after every single Muslim has been exterminated?

Islam is growing much faster than Christianity. In fact, Christianity (last I've checked) isn't growing at all anymore. There should be plenty of Muslims and Christians to continue fighting holy wars for quite some time.

On that note, statements implying that "Busheviks" want to exterminate all Muslims are fallacious hyperboile. If you have something educated, logical, and intelligent to add I'd love to hear it.

On that note, statements implying that "Busheviks" want to exterminate all Muslims are fallacious hyperboile. If you have something educated, logical, and intelligent to add I'd love to hear it.

And since when does a thread that insists that every Iraqi civilian casualty is in fact a deliberate negative ad campaign against the U.S. deserves any real educated, logical and intelligent reply? It's the Menendezation of Iraqi civilians pure and simple.

And since when does a thread that insists that every Iraqi civilian casualty is in fact a deliberate negative ad campaign against the U.S. deserves any real educated, logical and intelligent reply? It's the Menendezation of Iraqi civilians pure and simple.

No one in the thread stated that "every Iraqi civilian casualty is in fact a deliberate negative ad campaign against the U.S." This thread was quite clearly and specifically about the single event and similiar ones stated in the opening post.

You're committing the strawman fallacy by attacking an argument that you've fabricated. Let me know when you want to stop with the fallacies and be logical. :cool:

No one in the thread stated that "every Iraqi civilian casualty is in fact a deliberate negative ad campaign against the U.S." This thread was quite clearly and specifically about the single event and similiar ones stated in the opening post.

You're committing the strawman fallacy by attacking an argument that you've fabricated. Let me know when you want to stop with the fallacies and be logical. :cool:

Actually that would be a Slippery Slope Argument I made because I implied that a specific instance of blaming the victims is being applied to Iraqi casualties as a whole.

But really, this whole thread was made as a Menendez Defense to ease the conscience of the pro-war side.

If I ever met a raghead...I'm not sure what I'd do, but it would be violent. Forget my pacifist leanings, I'm starting a brawl. I knew I played hockey for a reason...




And the pro-war conservative Christian drops the racial slur.


Shocker.

It's fairly childish that you think that Bush is somehow going to exterminate every single Muslim on the planet.

He and his administration are WAY too incompetant for the mass-genocide of over a billion people.

And the pro-war conservative Christian drops the racial slur.


Shocker.

From a properly educated standpoint, if he wishes evil on someone simply for being believing in a different religion, he has no right to call himself Christian at all.

From a properly educated standpoint, if he wishes evil on someone simply for being believing in a different religion, he has no right to call himself Christian at all.

Well he certainly isn't being very Christ-like, but by all common definitions, being one who believes in the story of the Gospels and salvation through the Resurrection, he qualifies as a Christian.

It's fairly childish that you think that Bush is somehow going to exterminate every single Muslim on the planet.

He and his administration are WAY too incompetant for the mass-genocide of over a billion people.

Only if they're publically declaring the intention of exterminating Muslims. They'll succeed more if they say that they're trying to "Liberate Muslims All Across the Middle East and Bring Them Freedom and Democracy." Because we can see how the Iraqi and Afghan people are being "liberated" every day.

A Republic spreading Democracy?

Popular with their bullets and rockets?

I enjoy your description of the word "Insurgent". I'm sure you've met an "Insurgent" haven't you? All they are is a rebel, rebelling against us. They're human beings just like you and I, and to say they do not care about human life, innocent bystanders, whatever, is completely wrong. It would be safe to say that the American troops don't care about human life or innocent bystanders with their recent actions. So let's not be hypocrites here.
Yes, let's not be hypocrites. Blowing up mosques during prayers, blowing up bombs in public places, where civilians gather... that's sure showing a deep seated regard for the wellfare of innocent civilians.

And as to American troops... "safe to say they don't care"? You have got to be kidding. If, as you so wrongly assume, that the troops truely didn't care why haven't we simply carpet bombed places like Faluja?

Put the kool-aid down... it's warping your perception of reality.

Only if they're publically declaring the intention of exterminating Muslims. They'll succeed more if they say that they're trying to "Liberate Muslims All Across the Middle East and Bring Them Freedom and Democracy." Because we can see how the Iraqi and Afghan people are being "liberated" every day.

A Republic spreading Democracy?

While I'm no fan of Bush & Co., I would have to disagree: Bush probably isn't particularly evil; he's just incompetent and stubborn. And yes, he has a disturbing capacity for his convictions to overshadow and drown out all dissent, logic, humanity, and facts. Still, I very highly doubt that the administration is intentionally attempting to wipe out the global Muslim population.

Just to clarify...

Gauthier, do you believe that the Bush regime is attempting to wipe out all Muslims?

Or, do you believe any group is attempting to wipe out all Muslims? And if yes, which group?

Yes, let's not be hypocrites. Blowing up mosques during prayers, blowing up bombs in public places, where civilians gather... that's sure showing a deep seated regard for the wellfare of innocent civilians.

Again, we see why deep religious conviction becomes a problem in the modern world. I suspect the insurgents do care about human life...but that they care much more about their religious precepts. Which is why religious fundamentalism (be it bin Laden or Falwell) is the single greatest threat to modern civilization: it can turn otherwise rational people into (for all intents and purposes) murderous lunatics.

Yep. We're loved all ways by the iraqis.

I don't care if I meet them, and I refuse to look at them other than stepped on dog turdmush (Which is what they are). Car bombing schools, mosques, and open air bazaars. Ah! What romance and mystique to the life of an insurgent! What ruggedness!

I'd say the same of any war-loving racist piece of shit like yourself.

If I ever met a raghead...I'm not sure what I'd do, but it would be violent. Forget my pacifist leanings, I'm starting a brawl. I knew I played hockey for a reason...

What for? What reason do you have to hate them? Blind racism?

And what the fuck to you mean by "raghead". I know it's a racist slur, but do you mean Arabs, or specifically the freedom fighters in the Middle East?

Don't care about Iraqis? Psshaw. We go out of our way to avoid hurting them when possible. I guess the candy for the kids (Which is why Farah ran out to meet the American patrol, BTW.) or even bother with being friendly. We organized an election, provide security, and do our best to make things safe for them. Yeeeaaaaahh........
The sweets are propaganda, the election's done nothing, due to the government running a small area of Baghdad and nothing else, if by security and safety you mean "we've introduced martial law in vast swathes of the country" then yeah, you've given them "safety". But what are they now safe from?

Well he certainly isn't being very Christ-like, but by all common definitions, being one who believes in the story of the Gospels and salvation through the Resurrection, he qualifies as a Christian.

And being Christ-like (or at least attempting to be so) is also apart of being Chrisitan.

But, fourtunatly, this arguement is about Iraq, not religion, so let's not drag this down with a senseless arguement of religions and faiths, shall we?

And one more thing, don't let the irresponsible or illmotivated actions of the few affect your view of the many. For every American soldier who intentionally murders civilians, there's thousands who make a concerted effort to leave civilians out of the fight, and for every Iraqi who blows up a car bomb or guns down polls, there's thousands who simply want to get on with their daily lives.

And one more thing, don't let the irresponsible or illmotivated actions of the few affect your view of the many. For every American soldier who intentionally murders civilians, there's thousands who make a concerted effort to leave civilians out of the fight, and for every Iraqi who blows up a car bomb or guns down polls, there's thousands who simply want to get on with their daily lives.

Just to remind everyone on this issue again, the instance of the US soldiers killing the pregnant woman who ran the roadblock was not an intentional murder. They broke a law by running the roadblock and the soldiers opened fire. The US soldiers had no intention whatsoever to murder innocent civilians.

Just to remind everyone on this issue again, the instance of the US soldiers killing the pregnant woman who ran the roadblock was not an intentional murder. They broke a law by running the roadblock and the soldiers opened fire. The US soldiers had no intention whatsoever to murder innocent civilians.
This is hard to call. I can see why they did it, as it's hard to detect a pregnant woman in a car travelling at a high speed, but on the other hand, people with pregnant women usually drive in a pretty mental way, due to their wishes that their partner might be able to have a child without dying if they get to a hospital pretty sharpish.

The soldiers are still in the wrong on this one, simply because there were two people, one of them female in a car, travelling at a high speed. Most suicide carbombings are done by men who are on their own. And clearer markers should have been up, to be honest.

The soldiers are still in the wrong on this one, simply because there were two people, one of them female in a car, travelling at a high speed. Most suicide carbombings are done by men who are on their own. And clearer markers should have been up, to be honest.

Wrong according to whom? You? They aren't wrong according to rules of engagement, Iraqi law, US law, or intnl. law.

Is this going to turn into another case of Yootopia's "I'll use all forms of law when they justify my opinion, but when they don't I'll interpret it however I please?"

Just to clarify...

Gauthier, do you believe that the Bush regime is attempting to wipe out all Muslims?

Or, do you believe any group is attempting to wipe out all Muslims? And if yes, which group?

Bush regime itself? Hardly. But the Bush administration has a lot of supporters especially here on NSG who wouldn't give a second thought to casually tossing out "Glass (Muslim Country of Choice)" or "Kill the sand niggers" as an honest solution to the Middle East crisis and terrorism in general.

Bush regime itself? Hardly. But the Bush administration has a lot of supporters especially here on NSG who wouldn't give a second thought to casually tossing out "Glass (Muslim Country of Choice)" or "Kill the sand niggers" as an honest solution to the Middle East crisis and terrorism in general.

Well, I agree with you there. I think there are definately many people who would love to see all Muslims gone.

On that note, there are goals for genocide that we don't always realize, but they work by assimiliation. Both Islam and Christianity have the goal to convert the entire world, which is in effect a form of genocide in that its goal is to get rid of all other religions via conversion. Its just a non-violent form, so its overlooked.

Popular with their bullets and rockets?

I enjoy your description of the word "Insurgent". I'm sure you've met an "Insurgent" haven't you? All they are is a rebel, rebelling against us. They're human beings just like you and I, and to say they do not care about human life, innocent bystanders, whatever, is completely wrong. It would be safe to say that the American troops don't care about human life or innocent bystanders with their recent actions. So let's not be hypocrites here.

whoa!
detonating exsplosives in markets crowded with women and children is the pinnacle of compassion for humanity!

comparing that to armed soldiers at a checkpoint shooting a car blowing thru said checkpoint,usual targets of carbombs,is beyond intellectual dishonesty.

innocent deaths are terrible,committed from either side,the difference,as i have said ad nausem,is intent.
the insurgents "INTENTIONALLY" TARGET INNOCENTS(THAT IS WHAT TERRORISM IS ALL ABOUT)

we may accidentally kill innocents,but it is a war,and a dirty war at that.

the suspected killings in haditha is an aberration and wrong,but it is certainly not policy or intent to terrorise as policy.:headbang:

Wrong according to whom? You? They aren't wrong according to rules of engagement, Iraqi law, US law, or intnl. law.

Shooting civilians?

That's definitely murder, or at the least criminal negligence.

Is this going to turn into another case of Yootopia's "I'll use all forms of law when they justify my opinion, but when they don't I'll interpret it however I please?"
Oh no, not another Tropical Sands "I'll use this excuse to put down Yootopia, inferring just about anything I fucking like from anything he fucking says", is it?

Shooting civilians?

That's definitely murder, or at the least criminal negligence.

Murder is a legal term. The fact is, what happened was not illegal under any form of law, Iraqi or US. The only ones who actually violated a law were the ones who ran the roadblock, and by doing so the soldiers had the authority to use lethal force. That much is a legal fact.

Once again, you're confusing your own personal opinion of what "murder" is with the legal arena. Shooting civilians is not murder, nor criminal negligence, when the civilians violated a law that gave the soldiers the authority to use lethal force.

Oh no, not another Tropical Sands "I'll use this excuse to put down Yootopia, inferring just about anything I fucking like from anything he fucking says", is it?

I can't say I'm surprised you responded with profanity instead of a rational explanation for why you have the double standard of appeal to law when it fits your arguments and rejecting the rule of law it doesn't. Perhaps you'd like to address that.

What is paranoid about his suspicion? We have historical precedent to support it; its happened in the past on numerous occassions. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to at least be suspicious that this was a 'martyrdom' mission, as they have taken this form, and not an accident.

Like I wrote, we have testimony from Arabs (see Gan) that a modus operandi of terrorist groups is to 'martyr' civilians at the hands of soldiers, known by the term 'suicide by cop' or 'suicide by soldier.' Thus when Arab groups do something that appears to be reckless, and is definatly illegal (as running roadblocks is), that would make them the potential targets of soldiers, it isn't paranoid or unreasonable to at least believe it was possible this was intended as a martyrdom mission.

valid point!

but that would diminish the us as evil imperialist mf'rs,and shine a light on the so called freedom fighters as the murderous/callous/inhuman pieces of shit they are.

When a Iraqi man and his pregnant wife speed down a road closed by the military and refuse to stop when ordered, are they sacrificing themselves to make Americans lose popularity?

This would certainly be more effective in uniting Iraqis against US forces than blowing up Iraqis who are trying to get jobs. Has the enemy gotten smarter?

I think so. If this is true they're alittle smarter than what I give them credit for.

It was a tragic mishap. Both for the victims and the USAmerican soldiers trying to do their job in a risk-noisy environment.

It is also an opportunity for us to see clearly the character of this NSG poster called DesignatedMarksmen.

Reinforcing my view that the lowest common denominator in Patriarchal religions is hate, not love.

It was a tragic mishap. Both for the victims and the USAmerican soldiers trying to do their job in a risk-noisy environment.

It is also an opportunity for us to see clearly the character of this NSG poster called DesignatedMarksmen.

Reinforcing my view that the lowest common denominator in Patriarchal religions is hate, not love.
Agreed. How ever I do wonder why our troops didn't aim for the wheels...:(

Again, we see why deep religious conviction becomes a problem in the modern world. I suspect the insurgents do care about human life...but that they care much more about their religious precepts. Which is why religious fundamentalism (be it bin Laden or Falwell) is the single greatest threat to modern civilization: it can turn otherwise rational people into (for all intents and purposes) murderous lunatics.

outstanding point,and i agree.

religion has alot to offer,i know many christian/jewish/muslim friends that are deeply compassionate and their religion guides them in their compassion,but like a double edged sword..it can also be used as a rationalization of the most disgusting intolerance..ie...pat robertson and bin laden

If I ever met a raghead...I'm not sure what I'd do, but it would be violent. Forget my pacifist leanings, I'm starting a brawl. I knew I played hockey for a reason...
Say no more.

When a Iraqi man and his pregnant wife speed down a road closed by the military and refuse to stop when ordered, are they sacrificing themselves to make Americans lose popularity?

This would certainly be more effective in uniting Iraqis against US forces than blowing up Iraqis who are trying to get jobs. Has the enemy gotten smarter?

I think so. If this is true they're alittle smarter than what I give them credit for.
I think that you think too much. Trying to blame the victims of this tragedy just to deflect the negative reaction towards US troops is one thing.......suggesting that they did so to make the "Americans lose popularity", is absurd.

I think that you think too much. Trying to blame the victims of this tragedy just to deflect the negative reaction towards US troops is one thing.......suggesting that they did so to make the "Americans lose popularity", is absurd.

I'm not sure why people keep saying this is so far-fetched or absurd. While it most likely wasn't the case in this situation, it is an established fact that terrorists and insurgnets 'martyr' themselves via 'suicide by soldier' so as to gain recognition and demonize the enemy. The humanitarian group Teach Kids Peace records that even children do it here (http://www.teachkidspeace.org/doc1017.php):

"The PA has adopted a public relations strategy that emphasizes the role of children and youth in the Intifada, while exploiting the injuries caused by the IDF (unwittingly) or by Palestinian fire to children caught in the midst of the fighting. As part of this strategy, Israel is often presented on television as a "conqueror without restraints" who does not think twice about hurting children while, to strengthen the message, horrific pictures of dead and wounded children are shown in the background."

In addition, Arab terrorists have admitted that they do exactly this. See link above:

They planned to plant a bomb in the area, and one of the youths stated that he wished to commit suicide and had hoped to be killed by IDF fire.

Needless to say, these are examples from the Israeli-Arab conflict, rather than in Iraq. However, because we have a historical precedent of terrorists using this modus operandi, there is no basis for anyone to respond to DesignatedMarksman's skepticism as "absurd" "unreasonable" or any such thing. Its happened in the past, terrorists are known to do it, therefore it is reasonable to be suspicious of any account such as this.

Make sure to see previous posts for examples and links to pregnant terrorist attacks and suicide bombers, as well.

Yep. We're loved all ways by the iraqis.

I don't care if I meet them, and I refuse to look at them other than stepped on dog turdmush (Which is what they are). Car bombing schools, mosques, and open air bazaars. Ah! What romance and mystique to the life of an insurgent! What ruggedness!

If I ever met a raghead...I'm not sure what I'd do, but it would be violent. Forget my pacifist leanings, I'm starting a brawl. I knew I played hockey for a reason...
Not only did you play hockey for the wrong reason, you started this thread for the wrong reason, unless of course you were determined to display your bigotry and hatred, in which case, you have suceeded very well.

Perhaps your head got sandwiched between the glass and the lumber one too many times?

I'm not sure why people keep saying this is so far-fetched or absurd. While it most likely wasn't the case in this situation, it is an established fact that terrorists and insurgnets 'martyr' themselves via 'suicide by soldier' so as to gain recognition and demonize the enemy. The humanitarian group Teach Kids Peace records that even children do it here (http://www.teachkidspeace.org/doc1017.php):

In addition, Arab terrorists have admitted that they do exactly this. See link above:

Needless to say, these are examples from the Israeli-Arab conflict, rather than in Iraq. However, because we have a historical precedent of terrorists using this modus operandi, there is no basis for anyone to respond to DesignatedMarksman's skepticism as "absurd" "unreasonable" or any such thing. Its happened in the past, terrorists are known to do it, therefore it is reasonable to be suspicious of any account such as this.

Make sure to see previous posts for examples and links to pregnant terrorist attacks and suicide bombers, as well.
I give this thread ZERO credibility, based entirely upon the bigotry and hatred of the OP. Therefore, use of the word "absurd" is definitely appropriate.

Agreed. How ever I do wonder why our troops didn't aim for the wheels...:(

Because the wheels don't trigger the bomb, the guy driving does.

I give this thread ZERO credibility, based entirely upon the bigotry and hatred of the OP. Therefore, use of the word "absurd" is definitely appropriate.

Bigotry and hatred? While some in this thread have used racist terms, you'll notice that the majority have not. The only thing "absurd" here is you ignoring the facts.

The fact is that the insurgents (or freedom fighters if that's what you'd like to call them) have done things like this in the past. Suicide-by-cop/soldier isn't anything new, it's been done before, and thus all accidental deaths must be regarded with suspicion. While it may well be likely that the man was just trying to get his wife to the hospital, it was also just as likely to those soldiers that he was trying to kill them.

I give this thread ZERO credibility, based entirely upon the bigotry and hatred of the OP. Therefore, use of the word "absurd" is definitely appropriate.

Then you commit the fallacy of poisoning the well. The opening poster could be a bigoted racist (I'm not accusing anyone of anything), but this doesn't change the fact that there is reasonable suspicion, as I've demonstrated based on historical precedent and Arab testimony, that running the roadblock was a deliberate attempt at 'martyrdom' rather than a legitimate accident.

So far, no one has even been willing to respond to the arguments that I've made; Arab terrorists do have this modus operandi, they do 'fall on the bullets' of soldiers for matyrdom, they have confessed and admitted it, human rights groups acknowledge it, etc.

So, if you have a problem with my argument or the argument of the OP, refute it. But poisoning the well is an attack against the person, and doesn't refute the validity or soundness of the argument in any way whatsoever.

He never pinned civilian casualties on US soldiers. You're trying to take a skepticism of one situation and apply it universally. It doesn't work.

The fact is, we have historical precedent of his suspicion. Because its happened in the past, and is a modus operandi of terrorist groups, there is nothing unreasonable or paranoid about the assumption.

Maybe you missed the other thread, but we covered women terrorists in depth. It seems to me that you aren't that familiar with Middle Eastern terrorism, because pregnant woman terrorists are not unheard of either. Not only in the Middle East, but among the Tamil Tigers as well:

Pregnant Tamil suicide bomber (http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read/10137)

Now, there was originally some controversy, as women frequently pretend to be pregnant to hide bombs. It turns out this one was confirmed to be actually pregnant:

Pregnancy confirmed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/28/AR2006042800734.html)

In addition, Iraqis are known to do suicide attacks with pregnant women. Keep in mind, the woman in the car may not have even known the husband (who was driving) intended to do a 'martyrdom' mission. In any case, we have records of pregnant women doing suicide attacks too:

Pregnant Iraqi suicide attack (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2917107.stm)

But I'm sure you knew all about this, right?
You are missing the most important part.........there were NO bombs, which negates the premise behind this thread?

You are missing the most important part.........there were NO bombs, which negates the premise behind this thread?

I think you may actually be missing a part; did you not see the post where Arab terrorists admit attempting to be killed by enemy soldiers just to become 'martyrs' and demonize the other party?

You are missing the most important part.........there were NO bombs, which negates the premise behind this thread?

No, the premise behind this thread is that the bombs aren't needed, and that an attack against the image of the United States does more harm than killing a few brave soldiers.

You are missing the most important part.........there were NO bombs, which negates the premise behind this thread?No, the premise behind this thread is that the bombs aren't needed, and that an attack against the image of the United States does more harm than killing a few brave soldiers.

Yeah, I was going to go back and write that, but you got it.

CanuckHeaven, terrorists are known to actually attempt to get themselves killed by the enemy military, so that they can become victims and propaganda tools for the other side. To them, they are becoming 'martyrs', as well as being well aware of how their deaths will be used to demonize the other side.

Just look a few posts up, where I've cited an example of a Palestinian terrorist admitting this very thing, and a human rights group confirming that it happens.

I think you may actually be missing a part; did you not see the post where Arab terrorists admit attempting to be killed by enemy soldiers just to become 'martyrs' and demonize the other party?
Yeah, and lets take the whole family to do it?

Quit trying to justify the impropriety of this whole situation.

This thread should be tossed upon the dungheap from whence it came.

Yeah, and lets take the whole family to do it?

Quit trying to justify the impropriety of this whole situation.

This thread should be tossed upon the dungheap from whence it came.

A whole family didn't get killed. It was a man and a pregnant woman, which is identical to a previous example I posted.

You're squirming a lot, but you've really failed to make a solid argument. The fact is, terrorists do exactly what happened here. They will run roadblocks in an attempt to get 'martyred' so that they can become propaganda tools for their respective populations. I've already demonstrated this with numerous sources, including the testimony of a captured terrorist and supported with numerous examples, including pregnant suicide bombers running roadblocks.

So please, if you have something to say to that, I'd love to hear it. If the best you've got is "OMFG!!!Dungheapracist!!!!" then I'm not sure what to tell you, because you're too stuck within your own logical fallacies to have a serious discussion about the issue :rolleyes:

Yeah, and lets take the whole family to do it?

Quit trying to justify the impropriety of this whole situation.

This thread should be tossed upon the dungheap from whence it came.

Dead women and children make better propaganda than dead men.

That's exactly the kind of backwards, paranoid thinking that exemplifies people of your sort.


But 9-11 conspiracies are fine right?

A whole family didn't get killed. It was a man and a pregnant woman, which is identical to a previous example I posted.

You're squirming a lot, but you've really failed to make a solid argument. The fact is, terrorists do exactly what happened here. They will run roadblocks in an attempt to get 'martyred' so that they can become propaganda tools for their respective populations. I've already demonstrated this with numerous sources, including the testimony of a captured terrorist and supported with numerous examples, including pregnant suicide bombers running roadblocks.

So please, if you have something to say to that, I'd love to hear it. If the best you've got is "OMFG!!!Dungheapracist!!!!" then I'm not sure what to tell you, because you're too stuck within your own logical fallacies to have a serious discussion about the issue :rolleyes:
Well, I can see where you align yourself with the OP, in that you are not exactly a Muslim lover yourself. If anyone is stuck, that would be you. Enjoy your Iraqi bashing thread and stick your logic where the sun don't shine. :D

If the guys on the checkpoint followed ROE, then the fault does not lie with them, the fault lies with the people who wrote the ROE.

I heard that the two dead bodies were a pregnant woman and her mother/mother in law. Anyone confirm this?

Dead women and children make better propaganda than dead men.
If you want to talk about propaganda, perhaps you would like to discuss the number of innocent women and children that have died in Iraq due to US bombs and bullets?

These kinds of threads only create more negative propaganda against the US. Perhaps the light will go on sometime, but I am not holding my breath.

If you want to talk about propaganda, perhaps you would like to discuss the number of innocent women and children that have died in Iraq due to US bombs and bullets?

These kinds of threads only create more negative propaganda against the US. Perhaps the light will go on sometime, but I am not holding my breath.

Quite certainly. Perhaps you'd like to discuss the number of innocent civillians that have died in Iraq to due insurgent bombs and bullets?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5031030.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4755911.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4967644.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4904650.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4891008.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4873734.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4794098.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4736768.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4731474.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4699964.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4688270.stm

And this is just the highlights of what I found in 5 minutes of searching and clicking. I'm sure a more detailed look into it would find more.

Quite certainly. Perhaps you'd like to discuss the number of innocent civillians that have died in Iraq to due insurgent bombs and bullets?

Ah, you raise a valid point. I'd be willing to bet that more Iraqis have died at the hands of Iraqis during the US operation than as a result of US military action.

I know there are lots of places to get statistics on civilian deaths or total deaths in the war out there, but I havn't ran across any that have been able to give accurate statistics regarding just who is actually killing who. The blame seems to fall on this abstract concept of "occupation" rather than the actual people or groups doing the killing.

Quite certainly. Perhaps you'd like to discuss the number of innocent civillians that have died in Iraq to due insurgent bombs and bullets?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5031030.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4755911.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4967644.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4904650.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4891008.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4873734.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4794098.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4736768.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4731474.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4699964.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4688270.stm

And this is just the highlights of what I found in 5 minutes of searching and clicking. I'm sure a more detailed look into it would find more.
I am surprised that you don't get it.

This thread was started by a person who obviously hates "ragheads" and has violent intentions towards them (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11082474&postcount=12). The reason for the thread was somehow to justify the killing of innocent Iraqis by US troops. I am not buying the intitial premise that started this thread.

Freedom for the Iraqis my ass.

For a guy that likes to deal with logistics, I am surprised that you don't get it.

This thread was started by a person who obviously hates "ragheads" and has violent intentions towards them (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11082474&postcount=12). The reason for the thread was somehow to justify the killing of innocent Iraqis by US troops. If you want to add your anti-Muslim bias to the thread, be my guest, but I am not buying the intitial premise that started this thread.

Freedom for the Iraqis my ass.

Anti-Muslim bias? One of my best friends since the fourth grade is half-Arab! Don't you dare imply that I am a racist you ignorant shit. Just because I don't share your views on something does not automatically make me a white supremacist. :upyours:

And I'm hoping that by "rag-heads" he meant insurgents/terrorists. I can't speak with certainty on that, so maybe he can clarify.

Even if the thread was founded on racism (and I'm not saying it was), that doesn't mean that the points made in the thread are wrong. Were that true, your own arguments would be rendered false.

Even if the thread was founded on racism (and I'm not saying it was), that doesn't mean that the points made in the thread are wrong. Were that true, your own arguments would be rendered false.

Yes, thats a key point here. The fact is, CanuckHeaven has been completely unable to refute any of the points or the core argument, so he has slipped into the fallacy of poisoning the well to attempt to discredit the argument via the person. It seems like everyone has seen through that, though.

And I don't think he cares that he is being illogical in doing so, after all he did write to me:

*snip* stick your logic where the sun don't shine.

Anti-Muslim bias? One of my best friends since the fourth grade is half-Arab! Don't you dare imply that I am a racist you ignorant shit. Just because I don't share your views on something does not automatically make me a white supremacist. :upyours:

And I'm hoping that by "rag-heads" he meant insurgents/terrorists. I can't speak with certainty on that, so maybe he can clarify.

Even if the thread was founded on racism (and I'm not saying it was), that doesn't mean that the points made in the thread are wrong. Were that true, your own arguments would be rendered false.
Oppps. Sorry, I confused you with Tropical Sands.......I have corrected my post accordingly.

BTW, I may be a shit, but I am not ignorant. ;)

Well, I can see where you align yourself with the OP, in that you are not exactly a Muslim lover yourself. If anyone is stuck, that would be you. Enjoy your Iraqi bashing thread and stick your logic where the sun don't shine. :D
Tropical Sands, you should know that CanuckHeaven has never been able to deal with logic that disagreed with his own preconcieved ideas.

Your energies would better be served convincing the tide to follow Mercury rather than the moon.

Again, we see why deep religious conviction becomes a problem in the modern world. I suspect the insurgents do care about human life...but that they care much more about their religious precepts. Which is why religious fundamentalism (be it bin Laden or Falwell) is the single greatest threat to modern civilization: it can turn otherwise rational people into (for all intents and purposes) murderous lunatics.
Hear, hear.

Quite certainly. Perhaps you'd like to discuss the number of innocent civillians that have died in Iraq to due insurgent bombs and bullets?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5031030.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4755911.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4967644.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4904650.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4891008.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4873734.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4794098.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4736768.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4731474.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4699964.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4688270.stm

And this is just the highlights of what I found in 5 minutes of searching and clicking. I'm sure a more detailed look into it would find more.
This a specious point, due to a couple of factors:
1. The US military refuses to count the number of 'collateral' dead, so there can never be a comparison. Which pretty much invalidates your posting.
2. The insurgents are only there because the Americans are there. If the US had never invaded the insurgent bombs and bullets would never have been detonated/fired.

When a Iraqi man and his pregnant wife speed down a road closed by the military and refuse to stop when ordered, are they sacrificing themselves to make Americans lose popularity?

This would certainly be more effective in uniting Iraqis against US forces than blowing up Iraqis who are trying to get jobs. Has the enemy gotten smarter?

I think so. If this is true they're alittle smarter than what I give them credit for.
So you don't think it's possible that they suspect these men could be posing as american soliders trying to get them to stop and then rob them? You'd think the soliders could shoot out their tires instead of killing them.

So what's the point of the original post? Probably to say that it's okay to dismiss all Iraqi civilian casualties inflicted by US troops as "Suicide Bombers" and "Martyrdom Operations."

So what's the point of the original post? Probably to say that it's okay to dismiss all Iraqi civilian casualties inflicted by US troops as "Suicide Bombers" and "Martyrdom Operations."
Nowhere is it said that "it's okay to dismiss all Iraqi civilian casualties...".

Arguing that is absurd, but then you know that. That's why you said it that way.

The point of the thread is to discuss if it's possible that "suicide by soldier" are occuring in an effort to further damage public opinion on US involvement in Iraq.

It was a tragic mishap. Both for the victims and the USAmerican soldiers trying to do their job in a risk-noisy environment.

It is also an opportunity for us to see clearly the character of this NSG poster called DesignatedMarksmen.

Reinforcing my view that the lowest common denominator in Patriarchal religions is hate, not love.
To my mind, this sums up both the point of this thread and the problem with it. If we are going to work from the OP as the topic, then the OP is so flawed by the attitude and apparent motivation of DesignatedMarksman as to make any debate about the specific alleged incident totally meaningless.

Yes, the checkpoint shooting was a bad thing. Because both civilians are dead, we will never know WHY they ran the checkpoint, so to speculate on that is pointless. If they were innocent civilians then the outcome is the kind of very tragic thing that happens in a war zone. If they were insurgents on a suicide mission, then it is tragic to think that this is another kind of horror for the US forces to have to deal with. But what does it matter? Either way, the outcome is terrible propaganda against the US, so either way, it's lose-lose for us. So what is the solution to be? To turn into total yahoos like DesignatedMarksman and kill all "ragheads" on sight? Or to turn into pacifists and stop shooting at the enemy? Neither is a sane or even workable idea. In any event, we are not the ones to figure it out.

But what we can figure out and talk about and challenge is the shallow, poisonous, ignorant, and dangerously violent attitude we see in the OP.

Murder is a legal term. The fact is, what happened was not illegal under any form of law, Iraqi or US. The only ones who actually violated a law were the ones who ran the roadblock, and by doing so the soldiers had the authority to use lethal force. That much is a legal fact.

Once again, you're confusing your own personal opinion of what "murder" is with the legal arena. Shooting civilians is not murder, nor criminal negligence, when the civilians violated a law that gave the soldiers the authority to use lethal force.

A soldier should still be pulled up for shooting down civilians, no?

Why not shoot the tyres of the car, or maybe fire a couple of warning shots near the car before firing at the driver and passengers?

I can't say I'm surprised you responded with profanity instead of a rational explanation for why you have the double standard of appeal to law when it fits your arguments and rejecting the rule of law it doesn't. Perhaps you'd like to address that.
And I can't say that I'm surprised that you're so up your own arse about this.

I very rarely use the law in my arguments, and I reject the rule of law entirely when it doesn't conform to my own personal viewpoints. Just like you say that "shooting civilians isn't murder". When your warning shot goes to the face of a civilian, something is horribly wrong, no?

2. The insurgents are only there because the Americans are there. If the US had never invaded the insurgent bombs and bullets would never have been detonated/fired.

I've been waiting for someone to point that out.

Let me give you an analogy: if you go out and while crossing a street get hit by a drunk driver, then is it your fault for not staying home or the driver's fault for disregarding human life?

And if we follow your chain of logic, the insurgents were a result of the Iraq war, which was a result of America, which was a result of England.

OMG IT IZ TEH ENGLISHES FAULTZ!

But wait! Why stop there? England is populated with humans. And evidence shows that humans first appeared in Africa. Thus, the Iraq War is Africa's fault and they should be punished.

Anyone else see the holes in the logic here?

So you don't think it's possible that they suspect these men could be posing as american soliders trying to get them to stop and then rob them? You'd think the soliders could shoot out their tires instead of killing them.

Sigh. I've already answered this one. You shoot out the tires. Good for you. Now you have a car full of explosives in the middle of a busy street. Nice job, pal, thanks to you they'll have to get their tires changed after they've blown themselves up along with half the street. You've accomplished quite a lot there.

Sigh. I've already answered this one. You shoot out the tires. Good for you. Now you have a car full of explosives in the middle of a busy street. Nice job, pal, thanks to you they'll have to get their tires changed after they've blown themselves up along with half the street. You've accomplished quite a lot there.
I think the purpose behind killing the suspected homicide bomber rather than disabling the vehicle is to take the detonator out of the equation. Kill the person who will push the button and you prevent the bomb from going off.

I think the purpose behind killing the suspected homicide bomber rather than disabling the vehicle is to take the detonator out of the equation. Kill the person who will push the button and you prevent the bomb from going off.

Thank you! Somebody gets it! The tires aren't responsible for detonating the bomb. Were a person fleeing a crime in a normal, non-explosives-laden vehicle, then shooting out the tires would be a good course of action.

Nowhere is it said that "it's okay to dismiss all Iraqi civilian casualties...".

Arguing that is absurd, but then you know that. That's why you said it that way.

The point of the thread is to discuss if it's possible that "suicide by soldier" are occuring in an effort to further damage public opinion on US involvement in Iraq.
I disagree. I don't think that's the most important point in the OP.

I think we can accept that there is no question that "suicide by soldier" is going on. Suicide missions are a staple among both terrorists and nationalist insurgents, especially religiously motivated ones. So what? It is such a slight difference between a car running a checkpoint to draw fire and a car running a checkpoint to get its bomb in amongst its targets that I don't see how it would make any difference at all to the rules soldiers follow at checkpoints, including rules for using deadly force. At the checkpoints themselves, the motives of the runners is irrelevant. "Suicide by soldier" would be a propaganda weapon and, therefore, can only be combatted by counter propaganda.

The only possible difference in practice it could make would be if the US command realized that the enemy were using the checkpoint procedure rules against us in order to create anti-US propaganda while saving their ammunition at the same time. Then the commanders should think about reconfiguring the checkpoints to make it harder to run through them without actually blowing them up.

But, since I file "suicide by soldier" under the heading "No shit, Sherlock," I am more interested in the way the OP is using the idea. He is not just saying, "Damn those insurgents for their suicidal zeal. How are we supposed to combat this?"

In fact, he isn't even positing a situation which we know for certain that it was "suicide by soldier." For all we know, they could have been innocent civilians who panicked and ran when they shouldn't have and paid the price. The OP is clear that DesignatedMarksman does not know it was a suicide mission. He is merely suggesting that it might have been. And he is suggesting that, if this is going to go on, it is proof of how hateful the Iraqis are and therefore, how right Americans would be to want to kill them.

He's not complaining that such a suicide tactic would put checkpoint guards in a difficult position. No, he is saying that, based solely on the possibility that this might happen, he would rather kill a "raghead" than do anything else.

This is what I take exception to. I suggest that he starts with the desire to kill people but he doesn't want to be labeled a killer, so he looks about for mitigating excuses to kill people on sight, and this is the excuse du jour.

We can't control what the Iraqis do. We can only control what we do. DM's attitude is far more dangerous to the US, in my opinion, than anything the insurgents in Iraq might do.

Yeah, i husband trying to get his pregant wife to the hospital. How terrible, they must be terrorists. Hell, they must be terrorists just because they have dark skin right?:rolleyes:

Yeah, i husband trying to get his pregant wife to the hospital. How terrible, they must be terrorists. Hell, they must be terrorists just because they have dark skin right?:rolleyes:

A husband driving through a barricade at high speed, in a country where such an action screams carbomb.

Tropical Sands, you should know that CanuckHeaven has never been able to deal with logic that disagreed with his own preconcieved ideas.

Your energies would better be served convincing the tide to follow Mercury rather than the moon.
Looks like someone has a brand new puppet, complete with trolling features.

BTW, in regards to the war in Iraq, I guess it is more logical to blame the victims?

I think the purpose behind killing the suspected homicide bomber rather than disabling the vehicle is to take the detonator out of the equation. Kill the person who will push the button and you prevent the bomb from going off.

And then it'll just be a matter of time before the detonator is rigged to be activated by cell phone. Not only will it make killing the driver be less relevant in stopping the explosion and serve as a failsafe in case the driver has second thoughts... it'll serve as a nice boobytrap if the troops decide to inspect the vehicle.

Justifying the murder of a pregnant woman by the oh-so-virtuous US army? DM, you've fallen to a new low.

Seriously, is there any indications that the OP may even be on the same continent as the truth? Anything to back up the claims besides wild speculations?

A soldier should still be pulled up for shooting down civilians, no?

Why not shoot the tyres of the car, or maybe fire a couple of warning shots near the car before firing at the driver and passengers?


Actually no. The Iraqis broke the law when they ran a roadblock, and thus the soldiers were justified in using lethal force. It isn't military procedure to "shoot the tires." This is one case where the soldiers did exactly as procedure and law requires they do.

Actually no. The Iraqis broke the law when they ran a roadblock, and thus the soldiers were justified in using lethal force. It isn't military procedure to "shoot the tires." This is one case where the soldiers did exactly as procedure and law requires they do.
Do you know what the law is? Do you know what the correct procedure is?

I'm asking because I don't understand why they fired two shots and killed the two passengers, but did not fire directly at the driver? Or am I missing something?

Do you know what the law is? Do you know what the correct procedure is?

I'm asking because I don't understand why they fired two shots and killed the two passengers, but did not fire directly at the driver? Or am I missing something?

Because our troops don't have magic bullets. Assault rifles put a lot of lead into the air, and it's not at all like shooting on a firing range. If an unexpected moving target heading towards you at high speed, you don't stop to consider "Gee, maybe the passengers aren't involved in this at all. There's a slight possibility neither are holding the detonator, either. I should take careful aim and be sure not to hit th-(BOOM.)" You just instinctively shoot.

Because our troops don't have magic bullets. Assault rifles put a lot of lead into the air, and it's not at all like shooting on a firing range. If an unexpected moving target heading towards you at high speed, you don't stop to consider "Gee, maybe the passengers aren't involved in this at all. There's a slight possibility neither are holding the detonator, either. I should take careful aim and be sure not to hit th-(BOOM.)" You just instinctively shoot.

Then you're saying the army training in the firing range is craptastic. Or maybe they should stop using human shaped targets for everything.

And how the hell do you miss the engine block anyway? It's fatter than any human and you can't possibly not know where it is in most cars.

Also, you didn't specify any law.

Also, you didn't specify any law.

Nor did I claim they were following any. I don't know the official military procedure on how to disarm a car bomb. Someone else mentioned military law, not me. Please make sure you know who you are responding to next time.

Do you know what the law is? Do you know what the correct procedure is?

I'm asking because I don't understand why they fired two shots and killed the two passengers, but did not fire directly at the driver? Or am I missing something?

Unfortunantly they don't show us any pictures of how the roadblock was set up. If it was an open lane, and soldiers were sitting on the side, and a car came speeding past them, it would seem like the side of the car would be the side facing them and the one they would shoot at. But thats really all speculation, they never show us exactly how it is set up in the media, because it might remove the sensationalism of "OMG, US soldiers shot a pregnant woman!"

And I know that US Soldiers are allowed to defend themselves with lethal force in any situation where they have reasonable suspicion to believe that their life may be threatened. Because running roadblocks to blow them up with car bombs is common, and illegal, any person running a roadblock would give US Soldiers reasonable suspicion to think that their lives or the lives of others are in danger.

There is a lot of talk like "shoot the tires out" as if this is a Dirty Harry movie and US Soldiers are so hot that they can pick the wheels off of a car that is moving toward them at 60 MPH. But it isn't a movie, the soldiers aren't heros that can pick the wheels off of cars, they are scared young men who see a potential threat and respond as they are trained to do.

Nor did I claim they were following any. I don't know the official military procedure on how to disarm a car bomb. Someone else mentioned military law, not me. Please make sure you know who you are responding to next time.

Correct on the point of law, but not the disarming of a probable car bomb. They said "shoot to stop" and yet they ended up with "shoot to kill". I ask again, how the heck did they miss the engine block? Half a dozen rounds into that and the car won't go anywhere anymore. Even better since if you kill a driver on a working car, chances are it could go out of control and still smack into something.

So how do you miss something that's fatter than a human and covers about 60% of him?

Correct on the point of law, but not the disarming of a probable car bomb. They said "shoot to stop" and yet they ended up with "shoot to kill". I ask again, how the heck did they miss the engine block? Half a dozen rounds into that and the car won't go anywhere anymore. Even better since if you kill a driver on a working car, chances are it could go out of control and still smack into something.

So how do you miss something that's fatter than a human and covers about 60% of him?

Some cars have their engine in the back, so shooting the front won't do you much good. Especially if the explosives are packed into it.

And then it'll just be a matter of time before the detonator is rigged to be activated by cell phone. Not only will it make killing the driver be less relevant in stopping the explosion and serve as a failsafe in case the driver has second thoughts... it'll serve as a nice boobytrap if the troops decide to inspect the vehicle.

They don't seem to make a lot of those, unless you are talking about stationary car bombs, not moving ones.


Justifying the murder of a pregnant woman by the oh-so-virtuous US army? DM, you've fallen to a new low.

What need I say? Her brilliant husband made the life changing decision to run at a checkpoint. You don't do that. Not a smart move. The guys at the checkpoint see a SPEEDING car coming at them-hallmarks of a VBIED-vehicle born improvised explosive device.

Some cars have their engine in the back, so shooting the front won't do you much good. Especially if the explosives are packed into it.

Without an engine block in front bullets will pass through a car like green corn through a goose. The ONLY thing in a car that will really stop bullets are the engine block...everything else is swiss cheese.


Man I step away from the thread for a few hours and this happens. Oui, I am tired...

They don't seem to make a lot of those, unless you are talking about stationary car bombs, not moving ones.

The longer the war and occupation continues, the more the insurgents will be introduced to innovative means of killing the coalition troops. Again it's just a matter of time.

The longer the war and occupation continues, the more the insurgents will be introduced to innovative means of killing the coalition troops. Again it's just a matter of time.

And as time goes by the coalition will become more devious and cunning in it's ways of dealing with our favorite thugs, the ragheads. Whoever knew of using radar to pinpoint WHERE mortar rounds were coming from, where they were going to LAND, and having troops intercept/arty on target before the insurgents got out?

Not to mention all the things we are learning from Iraq.

And as time goes by the coalition will become more devious and cunning in it's ways of dealing with our favorite thugs, the ragheads. Whoever knew of using radar to pinpoint WHERE mortar rounds were coming from, where they were going to LAND, and having troops intercept/arty on target before the insurgents got out?

Not to mention all the things we are learning from Iraq.

Appalling.

When a Iraqi man and his pregnant wife speed down a road closed by the military and refuse to stop when ordered, are they sacrificing themselves to make Americans lose popularity?

This would certainly be more effective in uniting Iraqis against US forces than blowing up Iraqis who are trying to get jobs. Has the enemy gotten smarter?

I think so. If this is true they're alittle smarter than what I give them credit for.

I don't think that kind of behaviour is that of a ""suicide bomber".

Not to mention a little stupid.

I don't think that kind of behaviour is that of a ""suicide bomber".

Not to mention a little stupid.
Unfortunately, it is exactly the behavior of a suicide bomber.

And as time goes by the coalition will become more devious and cunning in it's ways of dealing with our favorite thugs, the ragheads. Whoever knew of using radar to pinpoint WHERE mortar rounds were coming from, where they were going to LAND, and having troops intercept/arty on target before the insurgents got out?

Not to mention all the things we are learning from Iraq.
Oh, you acquired psychic powers while you were away from the thread and can now predict the future? Oh, and that "ragheads" crap is getting really old, so unless you really enjoy being called a cracker or similar synonyms for racist jackass, I ask you to cut it out. You are in mixed company here.

EDIT: Things we've learned from Iraq: (1) Don't start wars; and (2) don't enlist bloodthirsty, Angel-Hello-Kitty-humping, maniacs like DM.

Whoever knew of using radar to pinpoint WHERE mortar rounds were coming from, where they were going to LAND, and having troops intercept/arty on target before the insurgents got out?


If you think this, you really are a silly individual. Radar spotting of artillery and counter artillery fire has been around since people built radars with enough fidelity to detect incoming shells. And that's been quite some time well before the invasion of Iraq.

As to the raghead idea, I think I have a suitable proposal. Let's not call US troops troops anymore. Let's call them all baby killing mass murderers. Got a problem with that? I'm only just using your rationale. If you can criticise that, criticise yourself first.

I don't think that kind of behaviour is that of a ""suicide bomber".

Not to mention a little stupid.
Did I say suicide bomber? Bah, I must have been up late. Maybe it's "Death by USGI", or what we have here in the states, "Death by cop". Someone intentionally acts violent, reckless, pulls an airsoft pistol with the tip painted black and aims it at an officer..officer shoots..suspect dies, which is what they want.

If you think this, you really are a silly individual. Radar spotting of artillery and counter artillery fire has been around since people built radars with enough fidelity to detect incoming shells. And that's been quite some time well before the invasion of Iraq.

As to the raghead idea, I think I have a suitable proposal. Let's not call US troops troops anymore. Let's call them all baby killing mass murderers. Got a problem with that? I'm only just using your rationale. If you can criticise that, criticise yourself first.

I'd never heard of this until I read Michael Yon's blog. I thought that was so awesome-spotting relatively small objects hurtling through space. Wonder how long before they manage to use radar to figure out where bullets are coming from? I was going to college to be an engineer, but I switched my major. Still, things like this fascinate me.

You would be correct to call the Soon to be Ex-marines Baby killers, SHOULD THEY BE CONVICTED. I don't have a problem with that. And in any case, I make a distinction between Civilians and terrorists/insurgents. You think I'm racist? I must say, WTF.... I have problems with anyone who blows up carbombs in alleyways, bazaars, and in front of buildings sacred to religious folk. Point me out where every single US GI in Iraq kills little kids. You won't be able to. However, you WILL be able to find that insurgents and terrorists in Iraq have a tendency to enjoy blowing up their fellow Iraqis. I call the terrorists and insurgents Ragheads, for the reasons being they a scum bags in need of a quick end.


The longer the war and occupation continues, the more the insurgents will be introduced to innovative means of killing the coalition troops. Again it's just a matter of time.

Appalling.

Somehow it's appaling to say the Coalition will adapt and continue to kill the 'rags in Iraq, but yet it isn't when someone says the insurgency will adapt to kill Coalition forces?

Hypocrite.

Oh, you acquired psychic powers while you were away from the thread and can now predict the future? Oh, and that "ragheads" crap is getting really old, so unless you really enjoy being called a cracker or similar synonyms for racist jackass, I ask you to cut it out. You are in mixed company here.

EDIT: Things we've learned from Iraq: (1) Don't start wars; and (2) don't enlist bloodthirsty, Angel-Hello-Kitty-humping, maniacs like DM.

Do we have insurgents or terrorists here on the forums? Apparently. You must like sticking up for murdering bastards huh? How am I racist when I refer to an insurgent or terrorist as a raghead? An I/T can be any nationality, but the raghead/THGH/Hadjis/Maadis moniker comes on when they start bombing mosques, open air bazaars, funeral processions, etc. C'mon, this isn't hard! If they didn't bomb or kill people they wouldn't be called intentionally demeaning names. D'UH!

ETA: I'm not white, therefore that wouldn't make me a cracker. And either way, I couldn't care.

this premise is appaling. a man and his pregnant wife deliberatly got themselves killed? christ on a bicycle you yanks will stoop to anyting to blacken the name of the arabs and assuage your own guilt about the breed of animal thats shooting up iraq

absolutley disgusting stuff, blaming the victim is one thing, but this really stinks.

How am I racist when I refer to an insurgent or terrorist as a raghead? An I/T can be any nationality, but the raghead/THGH/Hadjis/Maadis moniker comes on when they start bombing mosques, open air bazaars, funeral processions, etc. C'mon, this isn't hard! If they didn't bomb or kill people they wouldn't be called intentionally demeaning names. D'UH!

So it's acceptable for me to call any black criminals 'niggers', is it? Or to use terms like 'Nips' and 'Gooks' when referring to the criminals of certain countries?

Did I say suicide bomber? Bah, I must have been up late. Maybe it's "Death by USGI", or what we have here in the states, "Death by cop". Someone intentionally acts violent, reckless, pulls an airsoft pistol with the tip painted black and aims it at an officer..officer shoots..suspect dies, which is what they want.



I'd never heard of this until I read Michael Yon's blog. I thought that was so awesome-spotting relatively small objects hurtling through space. Wonder how long before they manage to use radar to figure out where bullets are coming from? I was going to college to be an engineer, but I switched my major. Still, things like this fascinate me.

You would be correct to call the Soon to be Ex-marines Baby killers, SHOULD THEY BE CONVICTED. I don't have a problem with that. And in any case, I make a distinction between Civilians and terrorists/insurgents. You think I'm racist? I must say, WTF.... I have problems with anyone who blows up carbombs in alleyways, bazaars, and in front of buildings sacred to religious folk. Point me out where every single US GI in Iraq kills little kids. You won't be able to. However, you WILL be able to find that insurgents and terrorists in Iraq have a tendency to enjoy blowing up their fellow Iraqis. I call the terrorists and insurgents Ragheads, for the reasons being they a scum bags in need of a quick end.






Somehow it's appaling t[/b]o say the Coalition will adapt and continue to kill the 'rags in Iraq, but yet it isn't when someone says the insurgency will adapt to kill Coalition forces?

Hypocrite.



Do we have insurgents or terrorists here on the forums? Apparently. You must like sticking up for murdering bastards huh? [b]How am I racist when I refer to an insurgent or terrorist as a raghead? An I/T can be any nationality, but the raghead/THGH/Hadjis/Maadis moniker comes on when they start bombing mosques, open air bazaars, funeral processions, etc. C'mon, this isn't hard! If they didn't bomb or kill people they wouldn't be called intentionally demeaning names. D'UH!

ETA: I'm not white, therefore that wouldn't make me a cracker. And either way, I couldn't care.
The bolded sections are all the racist remarks and the proof in your own words that you are using them deliberately. Everybody knows that "raghead" is a racist insult against Arabs and Indians (who also get to be called "dotheads" by racists). Like most bigots, you use such words to dehumanize your enemies. Apparently it's supposed to make it easier to kill people if you can pretend they're not really people, so insulting little names are made up for them. This neatly absolves you of the responsibility of controlling your own violent impulses against them. Your supposed delineation between a "raghead" and a proper person is too weak for my taste. If you are not able to look your enemy in the eye and recognize his humanity and the enormity of your action even as you shoot at him, then you are not someone who should be trusted with a weapon.

Btw, the underlined part is where you try to demonize me by implying that I support terrorism and am the enemy just because I oppose your views. Does this mean I get to be a "raghead," too? How good would you feel about killing me with your Hello Kitty gun?

Oh, as to the "cracker" thing, I wouldn't have done that anyway because I don't stoop to my opponent's level. I use proper language to discribe the things I don't like, and that's why I call you a racist and a bigot.

I often jump in front of bullets to prove my point. I've found that the greatest way to put emphasis on what you're saying is to take one in the chest.

ETA: I'm not white, therefore that wouldn't make me a cracker. And either way, I couldn't care.

Once you become a loudmouth racist flagwaver, you move beyond these things. You are what other Americans refer to as "an embarrasment", or as the Aussies put it, a "bloody seppo". As such, colour is unimportant, as is religon. You are usually in a field of your own, usually because everybody left when you came in. Me, I hope you join up and get shot by somebody with one eye and no leg.

this premise is appaling. a man and his pregnant wife deliberatly got themselves killed? christ on a bicycle you yanks will stoop to anyting to blacken the name of the arabs and assuage your own guilt about the breed of animal thats shooting up iraq

absolutley disgusting stuff, blaming the victim is one thing, but this really stinks.


Why do you say Yanks will stoop to anything...I'm an American ....do you believe I would condone this ? Maybe you should go back to the beginning of the thread and read my thoughts on this tripe ...


BTW..suicide bombers ...pregnant or otherwise ...delibertately do blow themselves up...they have in the past...along with all those around them.
That is why at checkpoints they shoot you for not obeying the warnings.
In fact..thats one of the major reasons for the checkpoints.
So whats this blaming the victim crap ?

It was in fact the drivers fault his passengers got shot...if anyone is to blame look no further.

this premise is appaling. a man and his pregnant wife deliberatly got themselves killed? christ on a bicycle you yanks will stoop to anyting to blacken the name of the arabs and assuage your own guilt about the breed of animal thats shooting up iraq

absolutley disgusting stuff, blaming the victim is one thing, but this really stinks.
You seem to have blinded yourself to what is actually happening. Homicide bombers do indeed deliberatly try to get themselves killed.
They have been using children to do this. Maybe they used children because they felt (granted, Im only assuming on this one) that the children would draw less suspicion.
Is it that much of a stretch of the imagination that they might use pregnent women now for the same reason?

You seem to have blinded yourself to what is actually happening. Homicide bombers do indeed deliberatly try to get themselves killed.
They have been using children to do this. Maybe they used children because they felt (granted, Im only assuming on this one) that the children would draw less suspicion.
Is it that much of a stretch of the imagination that they might use pregnent women now for the same reason?

was she a 'homocide bomber'?

no she was an innocent woman being rushed to hospital when the US military riddled her and her husband with bullets. she did not deserve to die like this and phrases like 'good shoot' and a tangent about suicide bombers just dehumanise a disgraceful waste of like.

now the narrative changes. she might have been a terrorist, and sure arent those arabs really evil anyway, she committed suicide to make your cowboy troops look even more trigger happy and out of control. its bollocks and dangerous bollocks at that.

how dare you destroy the womans name just to make yourselves feel better that all is well and the 'ragheads' are all terrorists, even if they arent. appaling intellectual vandalism.

was she a 'homocide bomber'?

no she was an innocent woman being rushed to hospital when the US military riddled her and her husband with bullets. she did not deserve to die like this and phrases like 'good shoot' and a tangent about suicide bombers just dehumanise a disgraceful waste of like.

now the narrative changes. she might have been a terrorist, and sure arent those arabs really evil anyway, she committed suicide to make your cowboy troops look even more trigger happy and out of control. its bollocks and dangerous bollocks at that.

how dare you destroy the womans name just to make yourselves feel better that all is well and the 'ragheads' are all terrorists, even if they arent. appaling intellectual vandalism.

We're discussing if such an action would be possible. Suicide-by-cop happens in America and European countries, so saying suicide-by-soldier happens in the Middle East isn't that far-fetched. It's nothing against Iraqis, Muslims, or Arabs, it's just suggesting that there's a slight possibility that, if not in this particular incident, then at some point in time, someone may have tried this in an attempt to turn public opinion against American troops.

no we arent.

DM and others are working off the premise that the US military can do absolutley no wrong and even when they do fuck up, like killing a woman in labour without warning, they didnt really fuck up as its all part of a devious iraqi plan.

people are putting forward the premise that this woman commited suicide by soldier and its not fucking on.

broadly though, yes, the US military has become so ill disciplined that it would be very easy to provoke them into overreaction.

how come the brits and poles have managed to avoid blasting civilians on a daily basis?

no we arent.

DM and others are working off the premise that the US military can do absolutley no wrong and even when they do fuck up, like killing a woman in labour without warning, they didnt really fuck up as its all part of a devious iraqi plan.

people are putting forward the premise that this woman commited suicide by soldier and its not fucking on.

broadly though, yes, the US military has become so ill disciplined that it would be very easy to provoke them into overreaction.

how come the brits and poles have managed to avoid blasting civilians on a daily basis?
Ok, now you are just making crap up.
Killed without warning? So, the car running a checkpoint that was marked and with armed soldiers telling them to stop... that's not a warning?

No one has said that the pregnant woman did indeed commit suicide. Rather, the OP used this incident to ask if it were possible that someone could stoop to that level. That has already been establised as a "yes".

What information do you have that the US military has become "so ill discilpined that it would be very easy to provoke them into overreaction"? Or is this just more crap, about which you have no clue.

You obviously have a very ill view of the US military and you make assumptions that have no basis in fact, but rather of your own imagination. You only wish it were true.

was she a 'homocide bomber'?

no she was an innocent woman being rushed to hospital when the US military riddled her and her husband with bullets. she did not deserve to die like this and phrases like 'good shoot' and a tangent about suicide bombers just dehumanise a disgraceful waste of like.

now the narrative changes. she might have been a terrorist, and sure arent those arabs really evil anyway, she committed suicide to make your cowboy troops look even more trigger happy and out of control. its bollocks and dangerous bollocks at that.

how dare you destroy the womans name just to make yourselves feel better that all is well and the 'ragheads' are all terrorists, even if they arent. appaling intellectual vandalism.
Are you so omniscient that you can tell the difference between a homicide bomber and someone who isn't? Do you honestly expect soldiers to be able to tell the difference at a glance?

You are the one practicing "appaling intellectual vandalism".

What information do you have that the US military has become "so ill discilpined that it would be very easy to provoke them into overreaction"? Or is this just more crap, about which you have no clue.

You obviously have a very ill view of the US military and you make assumptions that have no basis in fact, but rather of your own imagination. You only wish it were true.

Haditha.

Did I imagine that?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/aponline/41553.83IRAQ-CIVILIANS-KILLED.sff.jpg

Are you so omniscient that you can tell the difference between a homicide bomber and someone who isn't? Do you honestly expect soldiers to be able to tell the difference at a glance?


the brits seem to be able to.

if they cant do the job they are there to do, pull them out and hand control to troops who can tell the difference

Killed without warning? So, the car running a checkpoint that was marked and with armed soldiers telling them to stop... that's not a warning?
Ah, but that's an unclear part of the story. The driver claims no signals to stop were given, at least none that he observed.

I know nothing about how the checkpoint was marked.

No one has said that the pregnant woman did indeed commit suicide. Rather, the OP used this incident to ask if it were possible that someone could stoop to that level. That has already been establised as a "yes".
Oh? When? Where? What have I missed?

Haditha.

Did I imagine that?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/aponline/41553.83IRAQ-CIVILIANS-KILLED.sff.jpg
Do you know what happened in Haditha? No, you don't.. the only ones who do know where there, and I doubt very highly you were there.

I don't know what happened at Haditha either... unlike you tho, Im reserving judgment until the investigation is complete.

That being said, let's assume that Haditha is everything you wish it were. That the US Marines involved shot in cold blood every one they could get their hands on.

That represents what.... .01% of the entire US military presense in Iraq? So you would damn and convict the 99.99% who are doing their jobs under what can't even be imagined as the best of circumstancs? Ok, you would, but a reasonable person wouldn't. Talk about a broad brush. :rolleyes:

Ah, but that's an unclear part of the story. The driver claims no signals to stop were given, at least none that he observed.

I know nothing about how the checkpoint was marked.

Oh? When? Where? What have I missed?
You missed the fact that there are people who would commit suicide for political purposes? That's been going on for years.

Do you know what happened in Haditha? No, you don't.. the only ones who do know where there, and I doubt very highly you were there.

I don't know what happened at Haditha either... unlike you tho, Im reserving judgment until the investigation is complete.

That being said, let's assume that Haditha is everything you wish it were. That the US Marines involved shot in cold blood every one they could get their hands on.

That represents what.... .01% of the entire US military presense in Iraq? So you would damn and convict the 99.99% who are doing their jobs under what can't even be imagined as the best of circumstancs? Ok, you would, but a reasonable person wouldn't. Talk about a broad brush. :rolleyes:


yeah, i get a hard on when marines kill 3 year old girls and old men in wheelchairs :rolleyes:

a broad brush? the rotten apples argument was rolled out at abu ghraib too. seems to be more than 99.99% of your combat troops up to no good. the quicker people realise this the better for all of us.

the reality is we all know exactly what happened in haditha and now a question of damage limitation by the US government. by all means be patriotic and try and assume the best about your military, but open your eyes. civilian massacres happened in vietnam and are clearly happening in iraq. the big question is whether this a loss of disciple or a policy change.

You missed the fact that there are people who would commit suicide for political purposes? That's been going on for years.

You missed the fact that there are US soldiers lose control and butcher civilians.That's been going on for years

You missed the fact that there are people who would commit suicide for political purposes? That's been going on for years.
Nonono... "Suicide-by-soldier" as a political tool. When was that confirmed?

Suicide bombings are one thing, but unarmed people trying to get killed to make the enemy "look bad" - when/where was that establised as a "yes"?

Nonono... "Suicide-by-soldier" as a political tool. When was that confirmed?

Suicide bombings are one thing, but unarmed people trying to get killed to make the enemy "look bad" - when/where was that establised as a "yes"?

when the pentagon decided to dehumanise a dead pregnant woman who trigger happy troops killed on her way to hospital, spin that has been continued by useful idiots.

yeah, i get a hard on when marines kill 3 year old girls and old men in wheelchairs :rolleyes:

a broad brush? the rotten apples argument was rolled out at abu ghraib too. seems to be more than 99.99% of your combat troops up to no good. the quicker people realise this the better for all of us.

I'm sorry, we forgot to add in the handful of troops from that incident, too. Make that 99.98% of American forces.

yeah, i get a hard on when marines kill 3 year old girls and old men in wheelchairs :rolleyes:

a broad brush? the rotten apples argument was rolled out at abu ghraib too. seems to be more than 99.99% of your combat troops up to no good. the quicker people realise this the better for all of us.

the reality is we all know exactly what happened in haditha and now a question of damage limitation by the US government. by all means be patriotic and try and assume the best about your military, but open your eyes. civilian massacres happened in vietnam and are clearly happening in iraq. the big question is whether this a loss of disciple or a policy change.
The reality is you do not know what happened at Haditha. You weren't there. You are assuming you know what happened. You might be 100% correct. You might be 100% wrong. Open your own eyes. You have blinded yourself into automatically assuming the worst in US military and the best everyone else.

Im witholding judgement until the investigation is complete. If those who are responsible are found guilty, they should be sentenced. Never said other wise.

yeah, i get a hard on when marines kill 3 year old girls and old men in wheelchairs :rolleyes:
Yea, you probably do, because it would prove you right in your prejudice.

Wonder how long before they manage to use radar to figure out where bullets are coming from?

You're really too slow on technical updates. Current technologies apply the use of acoustics detection to pinpoint small arms fire as the report is usually close enough to determine the location. I understand that they will be using optics for the second generation of fire determination.

You're really too slow on technical updates. Current technologies apply the use of acoustics detection to pinpoint small arms fire as the report is usually close enough to determine the location. I understand that they will be using optics for the second generation of fire determination.

The French already have a system set up for detecting where bullets are coming from. However, they only tested it in an open area, not in an urban enviroment where it would most likely be used.

when the pentagon decided to dehumanise a dead pregnant woman who trigger happy troops killed on her way to hospital, spin that has been continued by useful idiots.

We're not trying to dehumanise the dead woman-it's sad, but the blame for it rests on her husband's shoulders. You shoulda stopped man..30 seconds explaining and pointing to the wife would have saved her and the baby.

Trigger happy my ass.

Nonono... "Suicide-by-soldier" as a political tool. When was that confirmed?

Suicide bombings are one thing, but unarmed people trying to get killed to make the enemy "look bad" - when/where was that establised as a "yes"?

It's possible-the mindset in some of the THGHs is there. They don't care about killing a bunch of kids, what makes you think their wife is more important that hurting the "Great satan"?

You missed the fact that there are US soldiers lose control and butcher civilians.That's been going on for years

I seem to notice a pattern..in many of the cases civilians seem to make stupid decisions that cost them their lives. :eek:

Although there are instances where Soldiers will go nuts and kill....Unprovoked. It'll happen because you get people out of the general population, and there are lots of flakes out there.Some get weeded out through recruiting and basic, some don't and slip through. There were a few murders by returning soldiers who killed their wives....Rope+tree=justice.

It's possible-the mindset in some of the THGHs is there. They don't care about killing a bunch of kids, what makes you think their wife is more important that hurting the "Great satan"?
It is possible of course, but it doesn't appear to be probable.

And there hasn't been presented anything in this thread to back up this hypothesis or in any way make it more credible. So... Meh.

It is possible of course, but it doesn't appear to be probable.

And there hasn't been presented anything in this thread to back up this hypothesis or in any way make it more credible. So... Meh.
To answer your earlier question, you missed post #54.
It not only appears to be probable, the quote was quite telling

They planned to plant a bomb in the area, and one of the youths stated that he wished to commit suicide and had hoped to be killed by IDF fire.

Why would a sane person argue against shooting at a car that is approaching a checpoint at high speed ?:D

I dont care if Jesus Christ himself is in the car...In a country where car bombs are a known threat and such CHECKPOINTS are set up as a way to combat them....Old JC would have been riddled with bullets as would ANYONE else ..pegnant ...holy ....blind ...stupid.....disabled...nuns with puppys...ALL dead .

Its no different than driving past the "bridge out ahead" sign and plunging 1000 feet to the bottom of a gorge .

The driver was a dope ..HE got his passengers killed .

So why all the pissing and moaning ? Go do something usefull . Adopt a stray cat or something .

To answer your earlier question, you missed post #54.
It not only appears to be probable, the quote was quite telling
No, I didn't miss it. I just feel that there is a huge difference between a youth saying something like that and actually going through with it.

Besides, that statement was made in connection with a plan to plant a bomb - hardly an unarmed civilian comitting suicide-by-soldier to make the enemy look bad.

The US is spending hundreds of billions of dollars destroying the landscape in Iraq. One would think that if the US is going to set up checkpoints and knowing that there have been problems with speeding drivers, that any number of systems could be deployed to either stop the vehicle at a safe distance or at least cause the driver to slow down dramatically?

How about speed bumps, inflatable parachutes, tire puncturing devices, hydraulically operated devices that would gradually decrease the lane width, etc?

I guess it is easier to spend a couple of dollars on bullets, and then blame the victims when there is a mistake made? Certainly it would be more cost effective, but more messy to say the least?

The US is spending hundreds of billions of dollars destroying the landscape in Iraq. One would think that if the US is going to set up checkpoints and knowing that there have been problems with speeding drivers, that any number of systems could be deployed to either stop the vehicle at a safe distance or at least cause the driver to slow down dramatically?

How about speed bumps, inflatable parachutes, tire puncturing devices, hydraulically operated devices that would gradually decrease the lane width, etc?

I guess it is easier to spend a couple of dollars on bullets, and then blame the victims when there is a mistake made? Certainly it would be more cost effective, but more messy to say the least?

How are we destroying the landscape?

The checkpoints change at random and aren't always in the same spot. Time and effort would make it unreasonable to install those...for a stationary checkpoint, IE Green zone, would work.

The way convoys deal with speeding drivers is to fire a burst in front of the car. It works most of the time. If they floor it and try to get closer......

We're discussing if such an action would be possible. Suicide-by-cop happens in America and European countries, so saying suicide-by-soldier happens in the Middle East isn't that far-fetched. It's nothing against Iraqis, Muslims, or Arabs, it's just suggesting that there's a slight possibility that, if not in this particular incident, then at some point in time, someone may have tried this in an attempt to turn public opinion against American troops.
There are two problems with this assertion:

1) The entire suicide-by-soldier notion is clearly an intellectually dishonest ploy to demonize the entire Iraqi population by connecting ALL of them with the insurgency (i.e. the enemy), in order to excuse -- not explain, but excuse as if there was nothing wrong with it -- a plain old-fashioned fatal mistake by US checkpoint guards.

The OP's bigotry against the Iraqis -- and, by his use of the insulting term "ragheads," against Arabs and Muslims in general -- is so great that he cannot bring himself to say that this was a terrible mishap of the kind that can happen in a war zone and that it's high time for everyone to be more careful -- civilians and soldiers alike.

No, instead, he tries to turn the shooting into a good thing by making the victims of it look like attackers -- despite the fact that they were completely unarmed, which he freely admits. He has zero evidence to support the existence of any such phenomenon as "suicide-by-soldier." None whatever. Yet he uses this fantasy to justify killing civilians, when the honorable course would be to admit that it was a mistake and a bad thing. His statements are beyond disgusting. I maintain that his is the attitude of a coward and a person utterly lacking in personal honor.

2) Your statement -- "it's just suggesting that there's a slight possibility that, if not in this particular incident, then at some point in time, someone may have tried this in an attempt to turn public opinion against American troops" -- is such a pile of unadulterated crap, such a lame attempt to soften, if not backpedal from your own points, that it implies very strongly that you know you are supporting a murderous lie.

<snip>
We're not trying to dehumanise the dead woman-it's sad, but the blame for it rests on her husband's shoulders. You shoulda stopped man..30 seconds explaining and pointing to the wife would have saved her and the baby.

Trigger happy my ass.



It's possible-the mindset in some of the THGHs is there. They don't care about killing a bunch of kids, what makes you think their wife is more important that hurting the "Great satan"?



I seem to notice a pattern..in many of the cases civilians seem to make stupid decisions that cost them their lives. :eek:
Cute, how in the first paragraph you act like you're backpedaling from your baseless accusations against the dead woman, and then in the next two you repeat those same accusations but expand them to cover the entire Iraqi civilian population. Still no proof that this is actually happening, though.

Although there are instances where Soldiers will go nuts and kill....Unprovoked. It'll happen because you get people out of the general population, and there are lots of flakes out there.Some get weeded out through recruiting and basic, some don't and slip through. There were a few murders by returning soldiers who killed their wives....
Yes, we've already learned this just from talking with you.

Rope+tree=justice.
Typical. :rolleyes:

There are two problems with this assertion:

1) The entire suicide-by-soldier notion is clearly an intellectually dishonest ploy to demonize the entire Iraqi population by connecting ALL of them with the insurgency (i.e. the enemy), in order to excuse -- not explain, but excuse as if there was nothing wrong with it -- a plain old-fashioned fatal mistake by US checkpoint guards.

The OP's bigotry against the Iraqis -- and, by his use of the insulting term "ragheads," against Arabs and Muslims in general -- is so great that he cannot bring himself to say that this was a terrible mishap of the kind that can happen in a war zone and that it's high time for everyone to be more careful -- civilians and soldiers alike.

No, instead, he tries to turn the shooting into a good thing by making the victims of it look like attackers -- despite the fact that they were completely unarmed, which he freely admits. He has zero evidence to support the existence of any such phenomenon as "suicide-by-soldier." None whatever. Yet he uses this fantasy to justify killing civilians, when the honorable course would be to admit that it was a mistake and a bad thing. His statements are beyond disgusting. I maintain that his is the attitude of a coward and a person utterly lacking in personal honor.

2) Your statement -- "it's just suggesting that there's a slight possibility that, if not in this particular incident, then at some point in time, someone may have tried this in an attempt to turn public opinion against American troops" -- is such a pile of unadulterated crap, such a lame attempt to soften, if not backpedal from your own points, that it implies very strongly that you know you are supporting a murderous lie.

I agree. Designated Marksman basically knee-jerk reacted to this incident with a combination of the Menendez Defense (The killings were the fault of the victims) and the Uncle Jimbo Defense (Any killing can be blank checked by crying out self-defense).

Why would a sane person argue against shooting at a car that is approaching a checpoint at high speed ?:D

Good point. I think anyone who has been in the position the soldiers were knows that they acted appropriately. The most criticism against the military regarding issues like this comes from people with no military experience and little working knowledge of procedure regarding issues as such.

First things first... DM, while I agree with a lot of what you say, I have to admit that in this instance you are being an ass.
There are two problems with this assertion:

1) The entire suicide-by-soldier notion is clearly an intellectually dishonest ploy to demonize the entire Iraqi population by connecting ALL of them with the insurgency (i.e. the enemy), in order to excuse -- not explain, but excuse as if there was nothing wrong with it -- a plain old-fashioned fatal mistake by US checkpoint guards.
You, and The SR and the like are the only ones who have said anything even closely resembling a gross generalization about the entire Iraqi population. Of course, by assuming that anyone pro-military is guilty of that generalization you give yourself that moral high ground that helps you sleep at night. You are the one being intellectually dishonest. It makes absolutely no sense for someone to drive past/through a checkpoint where armed men are pointing their weapons at him, and not stopping. You tell me how a soldier is supposed to tell the difference between the majority of Iraqi citizens who are just trying to get on with their life, and some who wants to kill said soldier?


The OP's bigotry against the Iraqis -- and, by his use of the insulting term "ragheads," against Arabs and Muslims in general -- is so great that he cannot bring himself to say that this was a terrible mishap of the kind that can happen in a war zone and that it's high time for everyone to be more careful -- civilians and soldiers alike.
Again, I have to agree that DM has a hatred against Iraqi's. However, his point of discussion is valid. Just as he can't bring himself to say there was a terrible mishap (we don't know for sure, again, we weren't there) You can't bring yourself that it's entirely possible that what he suggests can or is happening.

No, instead, he tries to turn the shooting into a good thing by making the victims of it look like attackers -- despite the fact that they were completely unarmed, which he freely admits. He has zero evidence to support the existence of any such phenomenon as "suicide-by-soldier." None whatever. Yet he uses this fantasy to justify killing civilians, when the honorable course would be to admit that it was a mistake and a bad thing. His statements are beyond disgusting. I maintain that his is the attitude of a coward and a person utterly lacking in personal honor.
You are distorting the OP's original post. Go back and read it. He isn't justifying shooting civilians. That is a construct of your own imagination to demonize DM because it's easier to hate someone you demonize, isn't it.
Zero evidence? Please read post #54.

2) Your statement -- "it's just suggesting that there's a slight possibility that, if not in this particular incident, then at some point in time, someone may have tried this in an attempt to turn public opinion against American troops" -- is such a pile of unadulterated crap, such a lame attempt to soften, if not backpedal from your own points, that it implies very strongly that you know you are supporting a murderous lie.
Read his first post. That is what he's suggesting be discussed. Your hatred for DM makes you blind to the chance that he might be right.

Good point. I think anyone who has been in the position the soldiers were knows that they acted appropriately. The most criticism against the military regarding issues like this comes from people with no military experience and little working knowledge of procedure regarding issues as such.

Perhaps. We have insufficient information on how the checkpoint was set up and how prominent the signage is. If the signs are clear and other vehicles were heeding it except that vehicle, you are right that the soldiers have to take immediate action. As I've mentioned earlier, in a risk-noisy environment it is difficult to make perfect calls. Sometimes a bad call is better than no decision. In this case it is a tragedy.

It is despicable to use this tragedy as an excuse to blame the victims and hurl racist insults. It is indicative of the kind of venom that occupies the base position in the OP's heart.

Perhaps. We have insufficient information on how the checkpoint was set up and how prominent the signage is. If the signs are clear and other vehicles were heeding it except that vehicle, you are right that the soldiers have to take immediate action. As I've mentioned earlier, in a risk-noisy environment it is difficult to make perfect calls. Sometimes a bad call is better than no decision. In this case it is a tragedy.

Right, I wrote the same thing earlier actually, that I wished the media would (or could) publish pictures of the roadblock itself.

First things first... DM, while I agree with a lot of what you say, I have to admit that in this instance you are being an ass.
This part is correct. The rest of your post is not.

You, and The SR and the like are the only ones who have said anything even closely resembling a gross generalization about the entire Iraqi population. Of course, by assuming that anyone pro-military is guilty of that generalization you give yourself that moral high ground that helps you sleep at night. You are the one being intellectually dishonest. It makes absolutely no sense for someone to drive past/through a checkpoint where armed men are pointing their weapons at him, and not stopping. You tell me how a soldier is supposed to tell the difference between the majority of Iraqi citizens who are just trying to get on with their life, and some who wants to kill said soldier?
Where did I say anything even resembling a condemnation or accusation against "anyone pro-military"? Where have I implied any wrong-doing on the part of the guards in the subject checkpoint incident? Quote me, please. You'll find you cannot because I never said any such thing.

I am criticizing DesignatedMarksman and his attitude. I am only talking about him and to him. It is not my fault if you choose to expand his blame to cover others. I certainly have not done so.

So, then, which of us is making a gross generalization? Which of us is being intellectually dishonest? Me? Or the person accusing me of saying things I didn't say in order to support someone else's lies (which I'll get to later)?

Again, I have to agree that DM has a hatred against Iraqi's. However, his point of discussion is valid. Just as he can't bring himself to say there was a terrible mishap (we don't know for sure, again, we weren't there) You can't bring yourself that it's entirely possible that what he suggests can or is happening.
No, it is not valid because there is no proof that it is actually happening, but he is deliberately using it as a "proof" of the bad character of the Iraqis.

As for your assumption that I refuse to believe it could happen, this just shows you haven't bothered to read the whole thread. I have already clearly stated that there is no doubt that this could be a terrorist tactic. My complaint is with DM and the attitude he is taking about it.

You are distorting the OP's original post. Go back and read it. He isn't justifying shooting civilians. That is a construct of your own imagination to demonize DM because it's easier to hate someone you demonize, isn't it.
Zero evidence? Please read post #54.
Cute attempt. DM's violent propensities are on ample display in his posts in this thread, as are his willingness to kill Iraqis, and his demonization of Iraqis as the enemy. He does this as a knee-jerk reaction. He even accused me of being a terrorist and insurgent. Calling him on his bad acts doesn't make me guilty of them too.

And post 54 proves nothing. Someone plotting to plant a bomb has nothing to do with an unarmed person deliberately drawing fire, AND it has not one thing to do with the subject checkpoint incident at all. He said that incident could have been "suicide by solider" and suggested this was a pattern, yet he has zero evidence that any such pattern of deliberate suicides exists, referring to this incident or any other. He hasn't even tried to present any.

Read his first post. That is what he's suggesting be discussed. Your hatred for DM makes you blind to the chance that he might be right.
Let's read it together:
When a Iraqi man and his pregnant wife speed down a road closed by the military and refuse to stop when ordered, are they sacrificing themselves to make Americans lose popularity?

This would certainly be more effective in uniting Iraqis against US forces than blowing up Iraqis who are trying to get jobs. Has the enemy gotten smarter?

I think so. If this is true they're alittle smarter than what I give them credit for.
Yep, seems to me like he's suggesting a new strategy from the enemy based on one anecdotal incident without any corroborating evidence whatsoever. Plus, if you like, we can each take some time to re-read the entire thread to see how he then uses this story of his to demonize and make accusations about all Iraqis. So, you know what? I say he's not right.

And neither are you in this instance.

Yep, seems to me like he's suggesting a new strategy from the enemy based on one anecdotal incident without any corroborating evidence whatsoever. Plus, if you like, we can each take some time to re-read the entire thread to see how he then uses this story of his to demonize and make accusations about all Iraqis. So, you know what? I say he's not right.

And neither are you in this instance.

I'm not really in the middle of this dispute, and I did state before that I don't think this accident was a result of the driver wanting to be killed by a soldier. However, I've loaded this thread with quite a few examples of how Arab terrorists do exactly what DM stated, and even Arab terrorists who have been caught and confessed to wanting to go out by dying on the enemies bullets to be 'martyred.' So in all fairness, DM's conclusion wasn't that of a 'new strategy' but something that terrorists have been doing for years, and has quite a bit of corrobroating evidence along with it.

Now, demonizing all Iraqis, calling them racial slurs, etc. is a whole other story. I'm not going to get into that. All I'm saying is that the original assertion is not that far fetched and can be supported.

Now, demonizing all Iraqis, calling them racial slurs, etc. is a whole other story. I'm not going to get into that. All I'm saying is that the original assertion is not that far fetched and can be supported.

But you can see that by bringing up such valid points, the OP is trying to brush off this specific instance as yet another martyrdom operation sucessfully carried out. And his racist tone adds credence to that observation.

But you can see that by bringing up such valid points, the OP is trying to brush off this specific instance as yet another martyrdom operation sucessfully carried out. And his racist tone adds credence to that observation.

Yup, I can understand that.

I'm not really in the middle of this dispute, and I did state before that I don't think this accident was a result of the driver wanting to be killed by a soldier. However, I've loaded this thread with quite a few examples of how Arab terrorists do exactly what DM stated, and even Arab terrorists who have been caught and confessed to wanting to go out by dying on the enemies bullets to be 'martyred.' So in all fairness, DM's conclusion wasn't that of a 'new strategy' but something that terrorists have been doing for years, and has quite a bit of corrobroating evidence along with it.
I have to disargee. The evidence you've presented (in post #54) is not compelling. In all the examples provided in your link, the children were armed. Where the one youth expressed desire to commit suicide by IDF fire, he was armed with a knife and involved in a plan to plant a bomb. This is a far cry from the OP's statement.

In addition, the article gives no indication as far as I can tell that anyone is performing suicide-by-soldier to make the enemy look bad. Rather, it seems only to confirm the heinous strategy of turning children into attackers, who may commit suicide-by-soldier while trying to kill the enemy.

There is a possibility that the OP is correct of course, but I'm of the opinion that it's very unprobable, and I'm going to need more conclusive evidence before I accept that it's actually happening anywhere in the world today.

I have to disargee. The evidence you've presented (in post #54) is not compelling. In all the examples provided in your link, the children were armed. Where the one youth expressed desire to commit suicide by IDF fire, he was armed with a knife and involved in a plan to plant a bomb. This is a far cry from the OP's statement.

That is actually nitpicking. To begin, there is no reason to assume that being armed is a logically necessary or sufficient quality for that type of martyrdom operation. It just so happens that, by chance, those youths were armed.

In addition, the article gives no indication as far as I can tell that anyone is performing suicide-by-soldier to make the enemy look bad. Rather, it seems only to confirm the heinous strategy of turning children into attackers, who may commit suicide-by-soldier while trying to kill the enemy.

The article specifically stated that the deaths of children at the hands of Israelis was used as an anti-Israeli propaganda tool.

There is a possibility that the OP is correct of course, but I'm of the opinion that it's very unprobable, and I'm going to need more conclusive evidence before I accept that it's actually happening anywhere in the world today.

Well, I actually don't think that in this specific case they were attempting to martyr themselves. However, it is a fact and common knowledge that these types of martyrdom operations exist. That is where we coined the term 'suicide by soldier.' You can google the term if you like, and come up with hundreds or thousands of hits, all relating to Middle East martyrdom operations for this very purpose. I'm not sure anyone really disputes that this happens save for lack of knowledge.

State governments admit it happens, such as the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment's Norsk rapport, stating regarding Muhammad Bouyeri that he, "wanted to be shot by the police and thus become a martyr." In fact, Bouyeri got himself taken into custody, unarmed, with a will in his pocket where he wrote that he would be, "riddled with bullets" and "baptized with blood...like I hoped."

I'm surprised at the naivety of people regarding these things. Is it that they don't want to believe that people are so religiously extreme that they would die this way, or that humanity is too good for this, or that they want to sympathize with the terrorists in such a fashion that they don't believe they would stoop to the low of using themselves as propaganda tools?

Ok, DM in his first point did not say that the people killed in the incident refered to were in fact trying to get themselves killed as propaganda.

From the way I understood his post, the incident made him think of a possible scenario where it could happen.

He didn't demonize them (in the first post, the rest of the thread he sort of lost it.)

And DM's bigotry aside, the scenario is not all that unlikely. And given the evidence, that some have refused to concider, it's possible that it's already happened.

And you call 9/11 conspiracy theorists idiots......

I'm not really in the middle of this dispute, and I did state before that I don't think this accident was a result of the driver wanting to be killed by a soldier. However, I've loaded this thread with quite a few examples of how Arab terrorists do exactly what DM stated, and even Arab terrorists who have been caught and confessed to wanting to go out by dying on the enemies bullets to be 'martyred.' So in all fairness, DM's conclusion wasn't that of a 'new strategy' but something that terrorists have been doing for years, and has quite a bit of corrobroating evidence along with it.

Now, demonizing all Iraqis, calling them racial slurs, etc. is a whole other story. I'm not going to get into that. All I'm saying is that the original assertion is not that far fetched and can be supported.
Yes, I saw your examples, but they did not convince me that the OP or DM's subsequent supporting arguments are valid. I thought they were irrelevant.

But I have already made it clear that, as far as I'm concerned, the question of whether "suicide by soldier" is a strategy is IRRELEVANT. Since, apparently, nobody can be bothered to read my posts when I post them, here they are again:

Post 82:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11084232&postcount=82

Post 87:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11084330&postcount=87

in which I state, among other things:

"We can't control what the Iraqis do. We can only control what we do. DM's attitude is far more dangerous to the US, in my opinion, than anything the insurgents in Iraq might do."

Ok, DM in his first point did not say that the people killed in the incident refered to were in fact trying to get themselves killed as propaganda.

From the way I understood his post, the incident made him think of a possible scenario where it could happen.

He didn't demonize them (in the first post, the rest of the thread he sort of lost it.)

And DM's bigotry aside, the scenario is not all that unlikely. And given the evidence, that some have refused to concider, it's possible that it's already happened.
I don't cherry-pick out the least offensive parts of an offensive argument. Taking DM's argument throughout the thread as a whole, I stand by my characterization of him.

And once again, whether "suicide by soldier" is happening or not is IRRELEVANT (I keep capping it because I'm tired of being ignored). The enemy's strategies do not excuse DM's attitude which is not caused by the enemy but by his bigotry, which you so cavalierly try to brush off. His attitude is what he brings to the situation; the situation doesn't create it for him. I know plenty of people who talk the way he does, and most of them have never faced a real enemy in their lives. Yet they are just as quick to demonize and threaten violence -- and many of them back up those threats with action, and not on the battlefield. For DM and his ilk, the war is just a convenient excuse to behave the way they would (and do) anyway. War doesn't make bigots. Bigots flock to war, like vultures to a carcasse.

Now, how about an apology for misrepresenting my statements? Here, again, is what I actually said about the checkpoint incident and about "suicide by soldier":

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11084232&postcount=82
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11084330&postcount=87

I'm not really in the middle of this dispute, and I did state before that I don't think this accident was a result of the driver wanting to be killed by a soldier. However, I've loaded this thread with quite a few examples of how Arab terrorists do exactly what DM stated, and even Arab terrorists who have been caught and confessed to wanting to go out by dying on the enemies bullets to be 'martyred.' So in all fairness, DM's conclusion wasn't that of a 'new strategy' but something that terrorists have been doing for years, and has quite a bit of corrobroating evidence along with it.

Now, demonizing all Iraqis, calling them racial slurs, etc. is a whole other story. I'm not going to get into that. All I'm saying is that the original assertion is not that far fetched and can be supported.

Did I miss something?

Did I miss something?
Probably, if you were aiming it. :p :D


I'm sorry, I just can't resist. I tried this time. I really did. But it's like Santa came early and brought me a straightman. :D